Spotted something interesting on Base chain – $RECALL just popped up on the radar.



Contract: 0x1f16e03C1a5908818F47f6EE7bB16690b40D0671
Trading on Uniswap Base

24H volume breakdown looking odd:
• Buy side: literally $0
• Sell side: $2
• Liquidity: $0
• Market cap sitting at $107.6M

Those numbers don't add up at all. Zero liquidity with a nine-figure valuation? Classic red flag territory. Either the data's glitched or someone's playing games with the tokenomics.

DYOR before touching this one.
RECALL2.1%
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 7
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
Add a comment
Add a comment
ser_we_are_earlyvip
· 2025-11-24 02:55
How can you claim a market capitalization of 100 million with zero liquidity? This data is outrageous!
View OriginalReply0
Ramen_Until_Richvip
· 2025-11-23 04:50
Zero liquidity supports a market capitalization of 100 million, this data is ridiculously absurd... another air project?
View OriginalReply0
ParallelChainMaxivip
· 2025-11-22 02:36
Zero liquidity supports a market capitalization of over 100 million? This is definitely playing a numbers game.
View OriginalReply0
gas_fee_therapyvip
· 2025-11-22 02:32
Zero liquidity but million market capitalization? This is obviously playing tricks, I don't believe the data can be this absurd.
View OriginalReply0
RektButStillHerevip
· 2025-11-22 02:24
Zero liquidity but hyped up to a $100 million market cap—this trick is so obvious I could see through it with my eyes closed...
View OriginalReply0
Token_Sherpavip
· 2025-11-22 02:24
zero liquidity but 107m mcap? lmao that's just ponzinomics dressed up as a token. velocity trap waiting to happen fr
Reply0
DefiPlaybookvip
· 2025-11-22 02:12
Zero liquidity supports a market capitalization of over 100 million? The data seems off, this logic doesn't make sense.
View OriginalReply0